Perspectives of primary care providers regarding multicancer early detection panels.

OBJECTIVE: Multicancer early detection panels have recently become available to patients with healthcare provider prescriptions and available funds. These tests utilize circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to screen more than 50 cancers using a single blood sample. However, perspectives and data on how the deployment of these tests may impact the practices of primary care providers in terms of implementation, interpretation, documentation, and costs are limited. This study aimed to assess the perspectives of primary care providers regarding the integration of multicancer early detection panels into clinical practice. METHODS: We used a survey to assess the opinions and perspectives of primary care providers, including physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, across a multistate, tertiary healthcare system. We used a single form consisting of novel questions on familiarity with multi-cancer early detection panels, cost, healthcare equity, documentation, medicolegal, and other concerns. The subgroup analysis was consistent with stratification based on familiarity with ctDNA-based tests and their roles in clinical practice. RESULTS: Most respondents were unfamiliar with multicancer early detection panels and had not used ctDNA-based tests. Most primary care providers suggested that they would reorder multicancer early detection panel testing at 1- to 5-year intervals and prefer subspecialists for both ordering multicancer early detection panels as well as interpreting their results. Relative concerns differed between physicians and nonphysicians. CONCLUSION: The integration of multicancer early detection panels into primary care practice requires careful planning and consideration for the management of increased clinical load, interpretation of results, and cost management.

Measurable Residual Disease and Clinical Outcomes in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Measurable residual disease (MRD) refers to the presence of disease at low levels not detected by conventional pathologic analysis. The association of MRD status as a surrogate end point of clinical outcome in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has not been established in the era of targeted agents. Assessing the association of MRD with progression-free survival (PFS) may improve its role as a surrogate marker and allow its use to accelerate drug development. Objective: To assess the association between MRD and PFS in CLL using data from prospective clinical trials that studied targeted agents or obinutuzumab-based treatment. Data Sources: Clinical studies on CLL were identified via searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception through July 31, 2023. Study Selection: Prospective, single-arm, and randomized clinical trials that assessed targeted agents or obinutuzumab-based treatment and reported PFS by MRD status were included. Studies with insufficient description of MRD information were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study sample size, median patient age, median follow-up time, line of treatment, MRD detection method and time points, and survival outcomes were extracted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Analyses of survival probabilities and hazard ratios (HRs) were conducted for PFS according to MRD status. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Results: A total of 11 prospective clinical trials (9 randomized and 2 nonrandomized) including 2765 patients were analyzed. Achieving undetectable MRD (uMRD) at 0.01% was associated with an HR of 0.28 (95% CI, 0.20-0.39; P < .001) for PFS. Median PFS was not reached in both groups (uMRD vs MRD), but the estimated 24-month PFS was better in the uMRD group (91.9% [95% CI, 88.8%-95.2%] vs 75.3% [95% CI, 64.7%-87.6%]; P < .001). The association of uMRD with PFS was observed in subgroup analyses in the first-line treatment setting (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.18-0.33), relapsed or refractory disease setting (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.71), and trials using time-limited therapy (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.40). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that assessing MRD status as an end point in clinical trials and as a surrogate of PFS may improve trial efficiency and potentially allow for accelerated drug registration.